EPYC 9275F vs Xeon Platinum 8368

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9275F

24 Cores48 Thrd320 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Xeon Platinum 8368

38 Cores76 Thrd270 WWMax: 3.4 GHz2021

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

EPYC 9275F

24 / 48

84,620

0.0%

Ryzen 9 PRO 7945

Ryzen 9 9900X3D

Ryzen 9 9950X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

Xeon Platinum 8368

38 / 76

92,054

+8.8%

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

EPYC 9275F

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.1% higher average FPS across 18 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $3,775 less on MSRP ($3,439 MSRP vs $7,214 MSRP).
✅Delivers 92.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.6 vs 12.8 PassMark/$ ($3,439 MSRP vs $7,214 MSRP).
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA4189 and DDR4.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 64) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (84,620 vs 92,054).
❌18.5% higher power demand at 320W vs 270W.

Xeon Platinum 8368

2021

Why buy it

✅+8.8% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 270W instead of 320W, a 50W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9275F across 18 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.8 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($7,214 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on LGA4189 with DDR4, while EPYC 9275F moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9275F

2024

Xeon Platinum 8368

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.1% higher average FPS across 18 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $3,775 less on MSRP ($3,439 MSRP vs $7,214 MSRP).
✅Delivers 92.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.6 vs 12.8 PassMark/$ ($3,439 MSRP vs $7,214 MSRP).
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA4189 and DDR4.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 64) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅+8.8% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 270W instead of 320W, a 50W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (84,620 vs 92,054).
❌18.5% higher power demand at 320W vs 270W.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9275F across 18 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.8 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($7,214 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on LGA4189 with DDR4, while EPYC 9275F moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9275F better than Xeon Platinum 8368?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, EPYC 9275F is ahead with a 8.1% average FPS lead across 18 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon Platinum 8368 pulls ahead with 8.8% better PassMark. EPYC 9275F also has the bigger cache pool with 349.1% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 57 MB).

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon Platinum 8368 is the better fit. You are getting 8.8% better PassMark, backed by 38 cores and 76 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

EPYC 9275F is the smarter buy today. EPYC 9275F is $3,775 cheaper on MSRP at $3,439 MSRP versus $7,214 MSRP, and it gives you a 8.1% average FPS lead across 18 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Xeon Platinum 8368 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 8.8% better PassMark. It is also 92.8% better value on MSRP (24.6 vs 12.8 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

EPYC 9275F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2021), a healthier platform with SP5 and DDR5 instead of LGA4189, and 3D V-Cache and a much larger 256 MB L3 cache instead of 57 MB. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

EPYC 9275F Benchmark Check

Xeon Platinum 8368 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Xeon Platinum 8368
1080p
low	315 FPS	185 FPS
medium	290 FPS	149 FPS
high	241 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	94 FPS
1440p
low	278 FPS	154 FPS
medium	230 FPS	120 FPS
high	178 FPS	93 FPS
ultra	159 FPS	74 FPS
4K
low	191 FPS	72 FPS
medium	157 FPS	60 FPS
high	120 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	107 FPS	38 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Xeon Platinum 8368

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Xeon Platinum 8368
1080p
low	725 FPS	412 FPS
medium	618 FPS	361 FPS
high	485 FPS	294 FPS
ultra	421 FPS	235 FPS
1440p
low	579 FPS	353 FPS
medium	510 FPS	314 FPS
high	419 FPS	264 FPS
ultra	341 FPS	203 FPS
4K
low	338 FPS	219 FPS
medium	300 FPS	198 FPS
high	270 FPS	167 FPS
ultra	239 FPS	135 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Xeon Platinum 8368

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Xeon Platinum 8368
1080p
low	923 FPS	935 FPS
medium	748 FPS	817 FPS
high	675 FPS	766 FPS
ultra	572 FPS	680 FPS
1440p
low	724 FPS	746 FPS
medium	584 FPS	643 FPS
high	515 FPS	603 FPS
ultra	433 FPS	535 FPS
4K
low	511 FPS	479 FPS
medium	421 FPS	378 FPS
high	374 FPS	334 FPS
ultra	309 FPS	272 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Xeon Platinum 8368

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 9275F	Xeon Platinum 8368
1080p
low	1141 FPS	911 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	828 FPS
high	902 FPS	714 FPS
ultra	813 FPS	613 FPS
1440p
low	891 FPS	712 FPS
medium	785 FPS	625 FPS
high	689 FPS	537 FPS
ultra	600 FPS	460 FPS
4K
low	650 FPS	514 FPS
medium	580 FPS	459 FPS
high	515 FPS	403 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	351 FPS

Open EPYC 9275F Open Xeon Platinum 8368

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 9275F and Xeon Platinum 8368

EPYC 9275F

The EPYC 9275F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 4.1 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 320 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 84,620 points. Launch price was $3,439.

Xeon Platinum 8368

The Xeon Platinum 8368 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2021-04-06. It is based on the Ice Lake-SP (2021) architecture. It features 38 cores and 76 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 57 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4189. Thermal design power (TDP): 270 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 92,054 points. Launch price was $7,214.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 9275F packs 24 cores / 48 threads, while the Xeon Platinum 8368 offers 38 cores / 76 threads — the Xeon Platinum 8368 has 14 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9275F versus 3.4 GHz on the Xeon Platinum 8368 — a 34.1% clock advantage for the EPYC 9275F (base: 4.1 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The EPYC 9275F uses the Turin (2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon Platinum 8368 uses Ice Lake-SP (2021) (10 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9275F scores 84,620 against the Xeon Platinum 8368's 92,054 — a 8.4% lead for the Xeon Platinum 8368. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9275F vs 57 MB (total) on the Xeon Platinum 8368.

Feature	EPYC 9275F	Xeon Platinum 8368
Cores / Threads	24 / 48	38 / 76+58%
Boost Clock	4.8 GHz+41%	3.4 GHz
Base Clock	4.1 GHz+71%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+349%	57 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	1 MB (per core)
Process	4 nm-60%	10 nm
Architecture	Turin (2024)	Ice Lake-SP (2021)
PassMark	84,620	92,054+9%
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	20,000
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,961
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	25,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9275F uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon Platinum 8368 uses LGA4189 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 6000 on the EPYC 9275F versus DDR4-3200 on the Xeon Platinum 8368 — the EPYC 9275F supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9275F supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 6 TB — 199.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9275F) vs 8 (Xeon Platinum 8368). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9275F) vs 64 (Xeon Platinum 8368) — the EPYC 9275F offers 64 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9275F) and C621A (Xeon Platinum 8368).

Feature	EPYC 9275F	Xeon Platinum 8368
Socket	SP5	LGA4189
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	6000+149900%	DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	6144	6 TB+104857500%
RAM Channels	12+50%	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+100%	64

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9275F) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon Platinum 8368). Primary use case: Xeon Platinum 8368 targets Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 9275F rivals Xeon 6980P; Xeon Platinum 8368 rivals EPYC 7543.

Feature	EPYC 9275F	Xeon Platinum 8368
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	—
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	—	Server

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 9275F launched at $3439 MSRP, while the Xeon Platinum 8368 debuted at $7214. On MSRP ($3439 vs $7214), the EPYC 9275F is $3775 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9275F delivers 24.6 pts/$ vs 12.8 pts/$ for the Xeon Platinum 8368 — making the EPYC 9275F the 63.4% better value option.